Summary
Service learning is argued to have a huge impact on students’ sense of self and their identity in the world (Boyle-Baise et al., 2006; Eyler & Giles, 1999). It is often heralded as an important way of providing transformative learning spaces, which contribute to a student’s “way of being” in the world. However others argue that service-learning isn’t inherently transformative nor does it focus explicitly on students’ own sense of the world and their self. Yet others pose questions about power and privilege, about the paradigms that operate in service, about relationships that ‘cross borders’, and about key service-learning processes such as mutuality and reciprocity.
Higher education provides students with knowledge and assists them to learn to do things in new ways. In this paper I argue that in an era of ‘supercomplexity’, curricula should give attention not just to knowing and doing, but to ‘being’ too. (Barnett 2004; 2009). The key challenge therefore is not so much epistemological as ontological and a new form of engagement is required. Ontological engagement requires an exploration of self, but not as a decontextualized practice; it is self in relation to the world, to others, and to the social realm.
Linked to service-learning, the challenge lies not just in developing new courses; it lies in challenging and assisting students to ‘learn service’ (Boyle-Baise et al., 2006). Following Boyle-Baise et al., I believe when ‘a study of service itself grounds the curriculum’, it can help disrupt students’ preconceived notions of service and interrogate their positionality in relation to community: to ‘be’ in new ways. This paper discusses how these arguments shaped the design of a new program at the University of Cape Town that focuses on students as ‘globally engaged citizens’ and puts service, context, and social justice at the core of its curriculum,
References
Barnett, R., & Coate, K (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Berkshire, UK: SRHE and Open University
Boyle-Baise, M., Brown, R., Hsu, M-C., Jones, D., Prakash, A., Rausch, M., & Wahlquist, Z. (2006). Learning service or service learning: Enabling the civic. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 17–26.
Boyle-Baise, M. (1998). Community service learning for multicultural education: An exploratory study with pre-service teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 52–60.
Butin, D.W. (2003). Of what use is it? Multiple conceptualizations of service learning within education. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1674–1692.
Camacho, M. (2004). Power and privilege: community service learning in Tijuana. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(3), 31–42.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hayes, E., & Cuban, S. (1997). Border pedagogy: A critical framework for service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(1), 72–80.
Henry, S., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2006). Toward a new framework of ‘server’ and ‘served’: de(and re)constructing reciprocity in service-learning pedagogy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 27–35.
Kassam, K. A. (2010). Practical wisdom and ethical awareness through student experiences of development. Development in Practice, 20(2), 205–218.
Keith, N. (2005). Community service learning in the face of globalization: Rethinking theory and practice. Michigan Journal for Community Service Learning, 11(2), 5–24.
Kiely, R. (2004). A chameleon with a complex: Searching for transformation in international service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 5–20.
Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal for Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65.
Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19–32.
Prins, E., & Webster, N. (2010). Student identities and the tourist gaze in international service-learning: A university project in Belize. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(1), 5–32.
Salazar, N. (2004). Developmental tourists vs. development tourism: A case study. In A. Raj (Ed.), Tourist behaviour: A psychological perspective (pp. 85–107). New Dehli: Kanishka.
Skilton-Sylvester, E., & Erwin, E. (2000). Creating reciprocal learning relationships across socially-constructed borders. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 65–75.
To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below:
“Learning service”: “Being”, engagement and social justice
Janice McMillan, Senior Lecturer, University of Cape Town [janice.mcmillan@uct.ac.za]
Keywords: Being, ontological engagement, ‘learning service’, curriculum, global education, context
Conference Track: Higher education student outcomes
Format: Research/Scholarly paper
Summary
Service learning is argued to have a huge impact on students’ sense of self and their identity in the world (Boyle-Baise et al., 2006; Eyler & Giles, 1999). It is often heralded as an important way of providing transformative learning spaces, which contribute to a student’s “way of being” in the world. However others argue that service-learning isn’t inherently transformative nor does it focus explicitly on students’ own sense of the world and their self. Yet others pose questions about power and privilege, about the paradigms that operate in service, about relationships that ‘cross borders’, and about key service-learning processes such as mutuality and reciprocity.
Higher education provides students with knowledge and assists them to learn to do things in new ways. In this paper I argue that in an era of ‘supercomplexity’, curricula should give attention not just to knowing and doing, but to ‘being’ too. (Barnett 2004; 2009). The key challenge therefore is not so much epistemological as ontological and a new form of engagement is required. Ontological engagement requires an exploration of self, but not as a decontextualized practice; it is self in relation to the world, to others, and to the social realm.
Linked to service-learning, the challenge lies not just in developing new courses; it lies in challenging and assisting students to ‘learn service’ (Boyle-Baise et al., 2006). Following Boyle-Baise et al., I believe when ‘a study of service itself grounds the curriculum’, it can help disrupt students’ preconceived notions of service and interrogate their positionality in relation to community: to ‘be’ in new ways. This paper discusses how these arguments shaped the design of a new program at the University of Cape Town that focuses on students as ‘globally engaged citizens’ and puts service, context, and social justice at the core of its curriculum,
References
Barnett, R., & Coate, K (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Berkshire, UK: SRHE and Open University
Boyle-Baise, M., Brown, R., Hsu, M-C., Jones, D., Prakash, A., Rausch, M., & Wahlquist, Z. (2006). Learning service or service learning: Enabling the civic. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 17–26.
Boyle-Baise, M. (1998). Community service learning for multicultural education: An exploratory study with pre-service teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 31(2), 52–60.
Butin, D.W. (2003). Of what use is it? Multiple conceptualizations of service learning within education. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1674–1692.
Camacho, M. (2004). Power and privilege: community service learning in Tijuana. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(3), 31–42.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1999). Where’s the learning in service-learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hayes, E., & Cuban, S. (1997). Border pedagogy: A critical framework for service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4(1), 72–80.
Henry, S., & Breyfogle, M. L. (2006). Toward a new framework of ‘server’ and ‘served’: de(and re)constructing reciprocity in service-learning pedagogy. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 27–35.
Kassam, K. A. (2010). Practical wisdom and ethical awareness through student experiences of development. Development in Practice, 20(2), 205–218.
Keith, N. (2005). Community service learning in the face of globalization: Rethinking theory and practice. Michigan Journal for Community Service Learning, 11(2), 5–24.
Kiely, R. (2004). A chameleon with a complex: Searching for transformation in international service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 10(2), 5–20.
Mitchell, T. (2008). Traditional vs. critical service-learning: Engaging the literature to differentiate two models. Michigan Journal for Community Service Learning, 14(2), 50–65.
Morton, K. (1995). The irony of service: Charity, project and social change in service learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2(1), 19–32.
Prins, E., & Webster, N. (2010). Student identities and the tourist gaze in international service-learning: A university project in Belize. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 14(1), 5–32.
Salazar, N. (2004). Developmental tourists vs. development tourism: A case study. In A. Raj (Ed.), Tourist behaviour: A psychological perspective (pp. 85–107). New Dehli: Kanishka.
Skilton-Sylvester, E., & Erwin, E. (2000). Creating reciprocal learning relationships across socially-constructed borders. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 7(1), 65–75.
To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below: